I am a Burmese exile taking a near-permanent refuge in New York and Sydney. Here are my essays about Burma and anything else I feel like writing about. And posting the articles I like from selected sites. Bridging Burma to the world this Blog is more of a Politically-Oriented Literary Blog than a Plain News Blog or a Sophisticated Thoughts Blog.

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Obama’s Deep State Judge Screws President Trump

Hawaii Obama Judge Rules the Muslim Imam and plaintiff Ismail Elshik Has Special Constitutional Rights to Bring Anyone from Terror
Countries into America.

In a ruling issued on Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge, and Obama
appointee, prevented the President of the United States from enforcing his own
executive order to protect the nation from migrants from terror-riddled
countries. The (Judicial-Activist) judge then prevented every other judge and
every other state from following the President’s order, the judge making
himself a one-man Supreme Court and substitute President.

The judge then held that American
universities and immigrants living here can prohibit America from ever limiting
immigration from Muslim-heavy countries, claiming the First Amendment gives
Muslim-dominant nations a right of immigration to America.

Such arrogance and abuse of authority sound familiar? Such First
Amendment favoritism toward Islam sound familiar? Well, Obama did appoint this
judge, and a rule of thumb with federal judges is they tend to mirror the
psychologies of the man who appointed them.

The judge’s ruling is completely
lawless, mirroring Obama’s deep state allies in his shadow government’s attempt
to sabotage the Trump presidency. There is no precedent for the court’s order.
In fact, every precedent is against the court’s order; just read the detailed
logic and scholastic citation of proper governing legal authorities from the
decision of a moderately liberal Boston judge who upheld every part of Trump’s
prior order.

To give you an idea of how lawless the
decision is, just try to find the analogous case the Hawaii judge cites for his
ruling; there is none, not one single prior example of another judge ever doing
what this Judge did to the extent he did it.

To give you another example of how
baseless the court’s ruling is, even liberal law professors and scribes
criticized the more limited Ninth Circuit decision that this Hawaii judge goes
far beyond. Liberal law professor Turley noted Trump should win a challenge
against that ruling. Liberal democrat professor Alan Dershowitz noted the same.
Liberal law scribe Jeffrey Toobin conceded the same.

Here are a few reasons why:

First, nationwide injunctions for
non-party plaintiffs are not supposed to happen. A district judge presides over
his district, not the nation. He should not overrule other judges, nor dictate
his opinions on the whole nation. The law does not make him a single judge
Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court itself warned against issuing any relief not
individually and specifically necessary to the plaintiffs before the court.
Noting that “neither declaratory nor injunctive relief can directly interfere
with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the
particular federal plaintiffs,” the Supreme Court warned against extending its
reach beyond “the particular federal plaintiffs” in the case.

Rogue Judge Derrick Kahala Watson.

The Ninth Circuit itself even admits
this. The “principles of comity” compel that a court should not grant national
relief when doing so would “create tensions” with courts in other circuits and
“would encourage forum shopping.” The Ninth Circuit further reinforced that: “A
federal court…may not attempt to determine the rights of parties not before the
court.”

What kind of case was that the Ninth
Circuit saying not to extend your ruling beyond the plaintiffs in front of you?
An immigration case (Nat’l Cir. for Immigration Rights v. INS, 743 F.2d 1365
(9th Cir. 1984). The Ninth Circuit repeated this principle again and again.
That is why the Supreme Court reversed a California judge’s order just like
this Hawaii judge’s order — imposing a national ban beyond his limited district
jurisdiction of the parties before him.

Second, there is no constitutional right to a visa or a right of
immigration or emigration. A quick recap of key Supreme Court decisions
explains why. Aliens “outside the country receive no constitutional
protection.”

The Supreme Court repeatedly held an
alien seeking initial admission to the United States “requests a privilege, and
has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit
or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.” Thus, the President “may shut
out aliens” whenever the President determine such “entry would be prejudicial
to the interests of the United States.”

Congress expressly authorized this
Presidential action in the one statute the Ninth Circuit tried to hid in its
prior decision, cited above at 8 U.S.C. 1182. The actions of the President in
respect of enforcing this law “are largely immune from judicial inquiry or
interference.” This is because the Constitution entrusts “the power to regulate
immigration” exclusively “to the political branches of the Federal Government.”

As the Supreme Court recently
reiterated during Clinton’s presidency: judicial “deference to the Executive
Branch is especially appropriate in the immigration context” given the
“sensitive political functions that implicate questions of foreign relations.”

Admission into America is a privilege,
not a right. Congress gave the President broad statutory authority to exclude
any aliens he saw fit to. A full recitation of that law is useful, because it
is the one law the Hawaii judge, like the Ninth Circuit, hid from:

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of
restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any
class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of
the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem
necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants
or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem
to be appropriate.

Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed
to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of
airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling
to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection),
the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to
the United States by such airline.

The law is clear in the power it gives
the President, in the statute cited above — 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). Like the Ninth
Circuit decision before, the Hawaii judge goes out of his way to pretend this
statute does not exist. Indeed, it is never addressed in any real way in the
court’s entire opinion (much of which appeared pre-written prior to the oral
argument).

Just as we have a right to decide which
strangers enter our home and who sleeps next to our daughters’ bedroom or eats
our family’s food, we as a country enjoy the democratic right to decide who
enters our country, who lives next to us as a neighbor, and who enjoys the
fruits of our ancestral inheritance.

The Hawaii Obama judge went much further in the opposite direction: he
claimed an immigrant here has a right to bring in whatever other immigrants he
wants, even citizens from terror-riddled, Sharia-law-supporting, failed,
corrupted states that cannot vet or screen would-be aliens entering America.
Ask San Bernardino how that worked out.

Third, the First Amendment does not
apply to foreign aliens. That is how we kept terror-minded anarchists out of
the nation and sabotage-minded communists out of the nation. That is how every
President for more than a century limited migrants based on ideology or
statehood. That is why we were much more successful than Europe in limiting the
anarchist-inspired violence (that led Europe into World War I) and in limiting
communist internal sabotage (that led much of eastern Europe into communist
totalitarianism).

Every federal court followed that
process in limiting immigration from Muslim-terror nations after 9/11. This
Hawaii court’s decision directly conflicts with those Circuits; but, per usual,
it never even mentions any of those authorities. As the Second Circuit noted:
“one major threat of terrorist attacks comes from radical Islamic groups.

The September 11 attacks were
facilitated by violations of immigration laws by aliens from predominantly
Muslim nations. The Program was clearly tailored to those facts.” This court’s
ruling would overturn all of that, and basically claims every president since
Teddy Roosevelt violated the First Amendment in our immigration policies.

Put simply, the Hawaii federal judge ruled that because the imam was
Muslim and his would-be migrant visas wish-list came from Muslim-dominant
nations, the First Amendment gave him a special right to bring whomever he
wanted into the country, even from terror-riddled countries in security
compromised states the President recognized as a direct threat to the peace of
the people.

The First Amendment has never applied
to a right of immigration of foreign aliens, nor does it compel religious
favoritism toward Muslims. This is the new left’s interpretation of the
Constitution, and it is as perilous to our politics as the deep state within
and radical Islam abroad.

The Hawaii Obama judge didn’t interpret
the Constitution; he rewrote it, usurping to himself the sole power to control
borders, then delegated the exercise of that power to a Muslim imam and his
free visa wish list. The judge dishonored the rule of law in his order and
disrespected our legal traditions and governing legal authorities in his
reasoning for it. He effectively declared himself king and executioner.

“This grandstanding judicial supremacism has to stop,” wrote Roger Kimball. Indeed, it’s hard to see how the
logic of this temporary restraining order would ever permit a Trump
administration to have any immigration policy whatsoever with regard to majority-Muslim
countries.

What’s more, the idea that these courts
are putting forth that restricting entry to a country with a majority religion
suggests bias against that entire religion would make any and all immigration
policy unconstitutional. Very few countries don’t have a majority religion,
after all.

Regardless of one’s views on the
particulars of this executive order and its efficacy, the ability to determine
who can enter the country is one of the most obvious and important sovereign
decisions a people makes. That power is vested in the executive branch and
should not be enjoined by rogue judges like judge Derrick Kahala Watson.
Unelected and unaccountable judges ignoring the law in favor of their feelings
is a threat to self-government and rule of law. It needs to stop.

Donald Trump Fumes Against ‘Judicial
Overreach’ After Immigration Order Blocked Again: President Donald Trump fumed
against a federal judge in Hawaii who blocked his second Executive Order
limiting immigration into the United States from six Middle Eastern countries.

“This new order was tailored to the
dictates of the Ninth Circuit’s, in my opinion, flawed ruling,” he said. “This
is the opinion of many — an unprecedented judicial overreach.” Trump referred
to his second attempt at an executive order as the “watered down” version,
vowing to take his case to the Supreme Court if necessary.

“We are going to win,” he said. “We are
going to keep our citizens safe.” Trump admitted that he didn’t want to replace
his first executive order in the first place, suggesting that perhaps he would
go back to the original.

“The best way to keep foreign
terrorists or, as some people would say, in certain instances, radical Islamic
terrorists, from attacking our country, is to stop them from entering our
country in the first place,” he said as the crowd cheered. The crowd booed the
ruling, which Trump said, “makes us look weak.”

Trump made his remarks during a
political rally in Nashville, admitting to his fans that he had to be careful
about his rhetoric or the “dishonest” media would accuse him of attacking the
courts.

He read the text of the prevailing law,
which notes that the president can suspend immigration when “he or she” deems
it necessary. “Fortunately it won’t be Hillary-she,” he quipped, prompting a
roar of applause from the crowd followed by chants of “Lock her up!”

Derrick Kahala Watson, a district court
judge, has frozen President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban nationwide just
hours before it was to take effect. This came after Watson heard the state of
Hawaii’s case against the ban.

Hawaii was the first state to challenge
to President Trump’s new executive order, which replaced the one that was
signed at the end of January but that was halted by a federal judge. The new
order was specifically designed to fare better in court, but Hawaii’s lawyers
argued that it is still discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Here’s what you need to know about
Derrick Kahala Watson, the district court judge who froze Trump’s travel ban on
Wednesday.

1. He Was Nominated by President Barack Obama in 2012

In November 2012, President Barack
Obama nominated Derrick Kahala Watson to serve on the United States District
Court for the District of Hawaii. This came after Judge David Alan Ezra assumed
senior status in June 2012. In April 2013, the Senate unanimously confirmed
Watson in a 94 to 0 vote after months of delays.

2. He Previously Served as an Assistant Attorney in California &
Hawaii

According to the Obama White House,
Derrick Kahala Watson earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School, graduating in
1991 same year as Obama. Upon graduating, he started work at the San Francisco law firm Landels,
Ripley & Diamond. He was an associate at the firm from 1991 to 1995.

From 1995 to 2000, Watson served as an
assistant United States attorney in the Northern District of California. And
from 1999 to 2000, he was the deputy chief of the Civil Division. In 2000,
Watson joined the San Francisco law firm Farella Braun + Martel LLP, where he
focused on product liability, toxic tort, and environmental cost recovery
litigation.

Then, starting in 2007, Watson served
as assistant United States attorney in the District of Hawaii, and in 2009 he
became the chief of the Civil Division.

3. He Was the Fourth Article III Judge of Native Hawaiian Descent in
U.S. History

When Derrick Kahala Watson was
appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, he
became only the fourth person of Native Hawaiian descent to serve as an Article
III judge in American history, according to the Asian Pacific American Caucus.
Watson was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

At the time of Watson’s nomination,
Hawaii Congresswoman and Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American
Caucus Judy Chu released a statement celebrating the selection. “I am thrilled
that the Senate has voted to confirm Derrick Kahala Watson’s nomination to the
U.S. District Court,” she said at the time.

“This decision continues a significant
trend of working to ensure that our federal judiciary reflects the diversity of
the American people. Judge Watson is a strong addition to the federal bench,
and will surely be a great public servant for the people of Hawaii.” In
addition, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said that Watson will do Hawaii proud.

“Today, Judge Watson made history,” she
said in a statement. “I am confident he will serve Hawaii with distinction and
honor. He has dedicated his life to the pursuit of justice and fairness in our
legal system. I am proud to welcome this Kamehameha Schools graduate to serve
in such a prestigious capacity. We are fortunate to have someone of his stature
serving on our District Court.”

Upon announcing Watson’s nomination,
President Barack Obama said that the selection represents his “continued
commitment to ensure that the judiciary resembles the nation it serves.”

4. He Says That the Executive Order Was Intended to ‘Disfavor a
Particular Religion’

In his decision, Watson stated that
President Donald Trump’s travel ban was intended to disfavor a particular
religion, even if the White House argues otherwise.

He does say that it is “undisputed”
that the order does not “facially discriminate for or against any particular
religion,” but he goes on to say that “Because a reasonable, objective observer
– enlightened by specific historical context, contemporaneous public
statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance – would
conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a
particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose, the
Court finds that Plaintiffs…are likely to succeed on the merits of their
Establishment Clause claim.”

Those who have brought challenges to
the travel ban have argued that it discriminates against Muslims and violates
the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The original travel ban
called for religious minorities in the Muslim-majority countries to receive
special treatment, but this was removed in the second version of the order so
that there is no longer any reference to religion.

Overall, Watson says that the new order
isn’t any less unconstitutional than the old one, though he specifies that it
isn’t as if the administration could never put a similar order in place and
have it be found constitutional.

“Here, it is not the case that the
Administration’s past conduct must forever taint any effort by it to address
the security concerns of the nation,” Watson writes in his decision. “Based
upon the current record available, however, the Court cannot find actions taken
during the interval between revoked Executive Order No. 13,769 and the new
Executive Order to be ‘genuine changes in constitutionality significant
conditions.'”

Watson quotes from the 10th Circuit’s
decision; they said that any future travel ban should be “be purposeful enough
for an objective observer to know, unequivocally, that the government does not
endorse religion. It should be public enough so that people need not burrow
into a difficult-to-access legislative record for evidence to assure themselves
that the government is not endorsing a religious view.”

5. He Cited Donald Trump’s Past Comments in His Decision

In his decision on Wednesday, Watson
took into account past statements that Donald Trump has made as proof that his
executive order is a Muslim ban, saying that this is vital context and that he
need not only rely on the actual text of the order.

“A review of the historical background
here makes plan why the Government wishes to focus on the Executive Order’s
text, rather than its context,” he writes.

For instance, Watson quotes from a
Trump press release from December 2015 which reads, “Donald J. Trump is calling
for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States…”

Watson also quotes from some of Donald
Trump’s advisors like Rudy Giuliani, who said in a Fox News interview in
January 2017 that Trump asked him to come up with a way to legally ban Muslims
from the United States.

Giuliani explained, “I’ll tell you the
whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban.’ He
called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do
it legally.'”

Watson also quoted Stephen Miller, a
White House senior advisor who said in February that this new travel ban will
have “the same basic policy outcome” as the first one, which suggests to Watson
that the order has not fundamentally changed and is still as unconstitutional
as it was before.

In addition, Watson quotes from a March
2016 interview in which Donald Trump says, “I think Islam hates us.” Trump went
on to say in that interview that “there’s tremendous hatred” and that “we have
to be very vigilant. We have to be very careful.”

Watson says in his decision that these
“plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and
contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases,
made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular
purpose.” Watson also says that any reasonable person would conclude that the
order’s stated secular purpose is secondary to its goal of suspending Muslim
immigration.

Finally, Judge Watson rejected the
White House’s argument that the travel ban is not discriminatory because it
only affects six countries. “The illogic of the Government’s contentions is
palpable,” Watson writes. “The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward
any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally
flawed.”

(Blogger’s Note: It was reported that it
took Judge Derek Kihana Watson only two hours to write 43 page judgement,
probably well before hearing the oral arguments. He definitely doesn’t follow
the law the way a federal judge should, but he does clearly follow his left-leaning
political ideology the way an Obama-appointed pro-Muslim judge would.)

An unannounced trip that Barack Obama
took to Hawaii just days before a ruling from a Honolulu federal judge on
Donald Trump's new immigration restrictions has lead to accusations of improper
meddling as observers noted that Obama at one point may have been within five
minutes of U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson's house.

On March 13, 2017, local Hawaiian news
station KHON2 published pictures indicating that Barack and Michelle Obama had
made an unannounced trip to Oahu after
one of their viewers submitted photos of Obama at Buzz's Original Steak House
in Lanikai.

The paper reported that Obama spent March 14th playing golf in at the
Midway Golf Club in Kailua before joining "friends" in a private room
at Noi Thai Cuisine at Royal Hawaiian Center for dinner. There was no
information on the identity of the individuals Obama dined with. Online users
have noted that the most direct path from Kailua to Noi Thai would have taken
Obama within five minutes of Judge Watson's residence.

Following is a user-generated image showing location of Noi Thai,
Derrick Watson's residence and Obama's purported path from Kailua to Honolulu.

The day after Obama's Tuesday dinner in
Honolulu, Derrick Watson issued a ruling which effectively stopped President
Donald Trump's executive order on immigration from taking effect hours later.
Observers immediately protested the ruling, noting that not only was Watson
appointed to his position by Obama in 2014, they had both graduated from
Harvard Law School in 1991.

Judge Watson's 43-page ruling was issued
a mere two hours after hearing arguments on whether or not the immigration ban
should be blocked. This would have required Watson to write a page roughly
every three minutes, raising questions about whether or not the judge had
already made a decision before even hearing arguments from attorneys and had
already drafted a ruling.

The proximity of the judge to Obama on
his vacation just days before the consequential hearing, their lengthy history
together, Obama appointed Judge Watson to the Federal Bench, and facts
indicating that the judge had prepared a ruling before the case even began
raise questions about whether or not the former President exercised improper
influence in the judge's decision.